WWIII placeholder thread.

I don't see any equivalence in these scenarios.

How the hell not?

Drunk possibly?

Are you suggesting I should not see a substantive difference between the Taliban and the United States government? Are you suggesting China would see no difference?

For crying out loud, that's the point! You're pretending that the justification for invading Afghanistan came from those reasons that we've construed in the Chinese parallel case. But they don't. They come from totally different reasons.

Given all the same reasons you're pretending sufficed to justify the American invasion of Afghanistan, the Chinese invasion of the US is ludicrous. This is exactly how ludicrous your depiction of the justification for the invasion of Afghanistan is.

It's clear to me that a madman could kill three thousand Germans or Irish people and neither Packard nor Rick Retard would bat an eyelash at it except to complain how their own countries are at fault for the attack.

Did anything register with you when you had typed this far? Some kind of perspective, perhaps, concerning mass murders by madmen and where 9/11 ranks on a European scale?

Well, even on a European scale killing 3,000 people within an hour was pretty rare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Since there have been many terrorist attacks in Ireland and that has not been my response, you're full of shit.

I did say "rare" and not "never" garamet.

How many terrorist attacks have their been in Ireland since you began posting here?

Dozens.

Interesting. I thought the "troubles" were supposedly over.

You've been here nearly 10 years. Can you post a link to a list of terrorist attacks in Ireland during that time?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/battle-of-agincourt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2000s

There are fringe groups still carrying out attacks.

Here is a list of one of them.

So you've set up this 'parallel scenario' where the US is not the US and China is not China and want to know if not-China is justified in invading not-US to get a terrorist being sheltered in the not-US?

Sure...?

Rick. I cross referenced your list and those provided by Garamet. And assuming they are correct.........then the number of people killed in Ireland by terrorist attacks have averages LESS than one person killed each year since 2004!!!

No offense to you and your tiny country but those numbers make terrorism in Ireland in the 21st century largely a non issue.

Hell, the Real IRA (RIRA) has had more bomb HOAXES than actual killings or woundings.

I didn't say it was still a major issue. That wasn't the point being made.

There can be no universal equivalency in cases like this. You have to look at the track records of the nations involved, in both international relations and their internal justice systems.

If China claims that a person hiding out in the United States is behind a terrorist attack in Beijing, there's at least a 50/50 chance that they're lying through their teeth and the guy is actually a pro-democracy activist who they want to shoot through the head for challenging the Party.

Listen to what you're saying. A terrorist has just executed an attack that has killed thousands of innocent civilians, destroyed an iconic building, severely damaged another, crippled the nation's financial center and military headquarters. It would have been worse, were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers of the 4th flight. And you're saying "hey, we didn't have anything to do with it and we're trying to make the guy leave our country," would merit an "Oh, OK then. "?

If anything, that is an incentive move up the schedule to invade because right now you have an idea where bin Ladin is (or our hypothetical Russian). If the guy leaves the country, you have to hunt him down again. If someone commits a horrible crime, you don't want the people harboring him to tell him that he has to find another place to live, you want them to turn him over--or at least let someone who can catch him come in and get him.

Well, if an actual terrorist attack happened in Beijing, if thousands were dead and buildings were destroyed, and if the person in question had been known for decades as the head of a major terror network, we'd be more inclined to believe the Chinese.

Unless you want to go into tinfoil hat territory and say the Chinese blew up their own buildings after first spending years painting said fugitive as the head of a terror network.

So that's a yes on replacing the US government with whoever the Chinese prefer?

Precisely. Thus all talk about justice, just wars and justification are out the window, as the ability to generalize is the most basic precondition of justice and morality (and also law, btw).

Google "Clinton Chinese Campaign Contributions"

I've come to the conclusion that Packard and Rick are just trolling. There can be no other explanation.

But it's a rather brilliant effort. Just look at how they achieved universal agreement among Wordforge Americans. That's got to be a first.

I don't know about Packard, but Rick Deckard's positions here are perfectly consistent with things he has posted for years.

Packard is clearly marathoning. (For those of you who are relatively new, that is a lot like Ancalagoning.)

"IS AN AR-15 A MACHINE GUN!? IS IT? IS IT?"

Yes, Packard, the US should totally harbor a Russian terrorist who blew up Beijing. And then the Chinese should invade, take over, and set up a puppet government. Happy?

Now I understand why no one cares about what Europeans think.